The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant did not interfere with the victim’s business, such as breaking the lower part of H’s table, as stated in the facts constituting a crime in the lower judgment.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below convicting this part of the facts charged is erroneous by misunderstanding the facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court on the grounds of unreasonable sentencing (three million won of fine) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and examined by the lower court as to the assertion of mistake of facts, the lower court recognized that the Defendant interfered with the victim’s business by force by avoiding disturbance, such as cutting down the lower part of H from “G” operated by the Victim F on October 17, 2014, as indicated in the facts constituting a crime, around 22:00 as indicated in the lower judgment.

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

1) On October 17, 2014, H and J viewed alcohol by the police around 22:00. However, around that time, the Defendant stated to the effect that the Defendant reported to the police by getting involved in the disturbance, such as making a talk that he she was seated on the table that he she was seated and she was seated and she was on the old day, and she was seated on the table that he she was seated and she was seated (the investigation record No. 17 pages 2) and she was drinking at the police station as stated by the above victim’s statement (the investigation record No. 17 pages 2). However, the Defendant was under the influence of alcohol and talked on the above main points.

J made a statement to the effect that it would return to the Defendant’s report that it would have been a large number of times, and that it would be able to take a bath to J and H, and that it was shaking and shaking the lower part of H’s table (36-37 pages of investigation record) and consistent with the above victim’s statement.

3 Even after having arrived at the above main points upon receiving a report by the police, the Defendant continues to talk with H, etc. on the floor of the above main points.